Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:
Actually, the most realistic case is if both paralogs experience deleterious mutations. The idea that both paralogs will experience beneficial changes is entirely unrealistic since the vast majority of mutations are deleterious.

It seems to me Atheistoclast is stuck in the same cloud of incredulity as Steve, not realizing the difference between impossible and improbable.

I expect you to offer a fairly contrite apology over the unwarranted assertion that "macroevolution" is a creationist term.

'Macroevolution' in the sense that creationists use it is a creationist term.

They typically use it in a defensive sense now that at least some of them are honest enough to admit that evolution happens or possibly more accurately, realistic enough to realise they'll look totally retarded if they carry on pretending that it doesn't happen.

It's not so much used to describe things as to attempt to define an arbitrary barrier between what they have to admit happens and what they can't bear to admit happens for reasons of dogma and/or personal ego.

Though to be honest, I really wonder what kind of fucked-up mental gymnastics are required to be able to admit that some evolution happened, but then to look at the fossil record or the DNA record and effectively deny that species can be formed from ancestor species, or confidently assert that no major changes could happen even when talking about timescales that most humans would find incomprehensibly long.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
I don't say evolution makes all things possible - quite the contrary, there are hard limits, like physics just as a single example. However, you don't actually believe in evolutionary theory, and you set up strawmen that purport to show evolutionary theory wrong. It's quite obvious to anyone with even passing familiarity with you that your entire position is contrived; a desperate attempt to knock scientific findings as if that makes the case stronger for your bearded sky papa.

Welcome to creationism.

So you admit creationism is nothing but attacks on straw-men, to reject something that does not sound believable?

No. Creationists recognize the natural limits to biological change whereas evolutionists are in denial.

Once again showing you are rather uninformed concerning the basics of evolutionary biology...

Atheistoclast wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:
Actually, the most realistic case is if both paralogs experience deleterious mutations. The idea that both paralogs will experience beneficial changes is entirely unrealistic since the vast majority of mutations are deleterious.

It seems to me Atheistoclast is stuck in the same cloud of incredulity as Steve, not realizing the difference between impossible and improbable.

I expect you to offer a fairly contrite apology over the unwarranted assertion that "macroevolution" is a creationist term.

1. I don't see how your comment relates to the one you quoted.
2. I will admit my comment on macro-evolution was a bit rash, what I meant is that what creationists usually mean by macro-evolution is not how the term is recognized by the scientific community. I.o.w. the creationist variant of 'macro-evolution' isn't used by evolutionary biologists.
I do not feel the need to stroke your ego by apologizing for something which does not merit an apology. I did not insult you in any way, therefore an apology is irrelevant.

Now that we got that diversion out of the way, how about you start showing how your findings disprove macro-evolution, because your evasion has not gone unnoticed.

Atheistoclast wrote:No. Creationists recognize the natural limits to biological change whereas evolutionists are in denial.

Rather than 'recognising natural limits', the tiny fraction of creationists who have any interest in biology seem to essentially look for things that can be distorted into 'evidence' to defend their prior theological/egocentric conclusions that they're Specially Made By God.

That's not doing science, it's a perversion of science.

tolman wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:No. Creationists recognize the natural limits to biological change whereas evolutionists are in denial.

Rather than 'recognising natural limits', the tiny fraction of creationists who have any interest in biology seem to essentially look for things that can be distorted into 'evidence' to defend their prior theological/egocentric conclusions that they're Specially Made By God.

That's not doing science, it's a perversion of science.

It is the creationists who expose the silly tricks of the evolutionists. For example, evolutionists contend that freshwater species of stickleback are evidence of "rapid evolution". In reality, the freshwater varieties have lost some of their armor because it allows lake predators to grab hold of it. This is degeneration fortuitously proving to be beneficial but the evolutionists think it is a wonderful example of innovation and adaptation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Now that we got that diversion out of the way, how about you start showing how your findings disprove macro-evolution, because your evasion has not gone unnoticed.

In order for macroevolution to occur, we need new genes whose products perform new biochemical functions. The theory of evolution has always proposed that copies of genes can evolve in order to become these new genes with new functions. But my research, and the wealth of empirical evidence cited in the introduction, show that duplicate genes are actually maintained as useful backups that can compensate in the likely event that deleterious mutations affect paralogous sites. As such, duplicates are not free to simply evolve down a completely novel trajectory. Thus, a central feature of the theory has been debunked.

Atheistoclast wrote:The theory of evolution has always proposed that copies of genes can evolve in order to become these new genes with new functions.

Darwin's book On the Origin of Species: 1859.
Rediscovery of Mendel's Work: ~1900
Susumu Ohno's book about gene duplication: 1970

Whops.

But my research, and the wealth of empirical evidence cited in the introduction, show that duplicate genes are actually maintained as useful backups that can compensate in the likely event that deleterious mutations affect paralogous sites.

No, it shows that there are constraints on gene duplications. This is fine, and no problem to modern evolutionary biology. We have known about various evolutionary constraints for many, many decades. This, however, does not show that divergence of the duplicated gene is impossible or unlikely, merely that it is constrained.

Also, you are confusing the fact of common descent with mechanism. Even if we knew nothing about evolutionary mechanisms, we could still be confident that common descent is a fact.

Shrunk wrote:
You seem to have forgotten about natural selection. You must accept that, because you use it in your paper.

Yes, I do. Natural selection maintains duplicates as useful backups. It is a conserving force in biology.

Moridin wrote:

Whops.

I meant the modern evolutionary synthesis. That is 50 years old.

No, it shows that there are constraints on gene duplications. This is fine, and no problem to modern evolutionary biology. We have known about various evolutionary constraints for many, many decades. This, however, does not show that divergence of the duplicated gene is impossible or unlikely, merely that it is constrained.

Sequence evolution and divergence in duplicates can be quite extensive. But functional divergence is not.

Also, you are confusing the fact of common descent with mechanism. Even if we knew nothing about evolutionary mechanisms, we could still be confident that common descent is a fact.

Sorry, but without a valid mechanism you don't have a valid theory.

Atheistoclast wrote:It is the creationists who expose the silly tricks of the evolutionists. For example, evolutionists contend that freshwater species of stickleback are evidence of "rapid evolution". In reality, the freshwater varieties have lost some of their armor because it allows lake predators to grab hold of it. This is degeneration fortuitously proving to be beneficial but the evolutionists think it is a wonderful example of innovation and adaptation.

So you're actually claiming that toning down or losing a feature is a 'degeneration' (with all the fuckwitted creationist baggage implied by someone like you using the word) even if it's advantageous.

Is that another important conclusion you're planning to keep to yourself at the conference in order not to attract the howls of ridicule you known it deserves?

Atheistoclast wrote:But my research, and the wealth of empirical evidence cited in the introduction, show that duplicate genes are actually maintained as useful backups that can compensate in the likely event that deleterious mutations affect paralogous sites. As such, duplicates are not free to simply evolve down a completely novel trajectory. Thus, a central feature of the theory has been debunked.

So are you actually going to stand up at the conference and loudly declare that it's impossible for a duplicate gene to break free of selective pressures favouring its use as a backup, whatever the size of the population of organisms containing it, however perfectly or imperfectly the duplication happened, and however vital or otherwise the original gene was?

Could one of the appropriately qualified people here answer this question:

If there was a 'clean' gene duplication event such that an organism and its descendents (or some of them) gained an extra copy of a useful gene, if both copies were left functional, would that in the short term necessarily be neutral or beneficial for the organisms with the extra copy, or might it be disadvantageous?

tolman wrote:
So you're actually claiming that toning down or losing a feature is a 'degeneration' (with all the fuckwitted creationist baggage implied by someone like you using the word) even if it's advantageous.

Functionally it is degenerative even if it improves survival chances. We call it "devolution".

tolman wrote:
So are you actually going to stand up at the conference and loudly declare that it's impossible for a duplicate gene to break free of selective pressures favouring its use as a backup, whatever the size of the population of organisms containing it, however perfectly or imperfectly the duplication happened, and however vital or otherwise the original gene was?

No. My model and data show that if there is a sufficiently beneficial mutation in a duplicate, one that confers a new function, then there isn't any constraint. But it all depends on whether such mutations exist. However, it is difficult to see how duplicates that evolve under a near neutral regime of relaxed selection can break free of being maintained as a backup.

tolman wrote:Could one of the appropriately qualified people here answer this question:

If there was a 'clean' gene duplication event such that an organism and its descendents (or some of them) gained an extra copy of a useful gene, if both copies were left functional, would that in the short term necessarily be neutral or beneficial for the organisms with the extra copy, or might it be disadvantageous?

Depends. It might incur a metabolic cost on the organism having to produce identical proteins. It might also lead to harmful overexpression that upsets a chemical balance. Alternatively, it could have no effect or even be beneficial in a toxic environment.

Atheistoclast wrote:In reality, the freshwater varieties have lost some of their armor because it allows lake predators to grab hold of it. This is degeneration fortuitously proving to be beneficial but the evolutionists think it is a wonderful example of innovation and adaptation.

What you've just described is evolution by natural selection.
And none of this disproves macro-evolution.

Atheistoclast wrote:

tolman wrote:
So you're actually claiming that toning down or losing a feature is a 'degeneration' (with all the fuckwitted creationist baggage implied by someone like you using the word) even if it's advantageous.

Functionally it is degenerative even if it improves survival chances. We call it "devolution".

I can't even... This is hilarious.

Atheistoclast wrote:
In order for macroevolution to occur, we need new genes whose products perform new biochemical functions.

Nope, mutated genes will do just fine.

Atheistoclast wrote:The theory of evolution has always proposed that copies of genes can evolve mutate in order to become these new genes with new functions.

And they can.

Atheistoclast wrote:But my research, and the wealth of empirical evidence cited in the introduction,

None of which supports your macro-evolution is debunked conclusion.

Atheistoclast wrote: show that duplicate genes are actually maintained as useful backups that can compensate in the likely event that deleterious mutations affect paralogous sites.

This you have shown.

Atheistoclast wrote: As such, duplicates are not free to simply evolve down a completely novel trajectory. Thus, a central feature of the theory has been debunked.

This is your non-sequitur and baseless assertion, with which everyone is at odds with.